Re: Odoo 9 News

by

Andi Becker

- 11/13/2015 01:23:28

Fabien nobody is freaking out at this point. You can't use MIT because you still have to much left in AGPLv.3 and GPLv,3 otherwise you probably would. On the other hand you could use all kind of MIT stuff in any GPL surrounding and it would become GPL. But nevermind a CC is not a good solution even not when you suggest it here.

True - in general. You don't have to open-source your changes if you're using GPL. You could modify it and use it for your own purpose as long as you're not distributing it. BUT... if you DO distribute it, then your entire project that is using the GPL code also becomes GPL automatically. Which means, it must be open-sourced, and the recipient gets all the same rights as you - meaning, they can turn around and distribute it, modify it, sell it, etc. And that would include your proprietary code which would then no longer be proprietary - it becomes open source.

The difference with MIT is that even if you actually distribute your proprietary code that is using the MIT licensed code, you do not have to make the code open source. You can distribute it as a closed app where the code is encrypted or is a binary. Including the MIT-licensed code can be encrypted, as long as it carries the MIT license notice.is the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license?Yes, very much so.

Many of the most common free software licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, ... are "GPL-compatible". That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole).

But think about your suggestion to make translations CC (i.e. no free culture license again) I suggest. Take this here as an example:

It is a CC license but nobody could use i.e. the German Translation in his German commercial product and he could not make a derivate of it. And you would not even need to share it. I guess AGPL would be the much better way to force people to share it, if the contribute on their sites with a translation.

Example: You see that a certain part has been translated to a language you are i need for your next project but it is not available on the ODOO transiflex. On the other hand this service provider has actually extended the translation which you have done before under AGPLv.3. In that case you could ask that service provider for the code repository and could use it also in your own code. Both would benefit and could share there efforts.

With GPLv.3 this is not necessary to even release it to public and with LGPL you would open up the worst case that your stuff would probably be used in proprietary software you can't access at all and where than i.e some more terms have been translated which you would like to get too.

So I suggest to make the Translations AGPL or leave them in Public Domain as you already mentioned and if you are OK that the translations which get contributed are AGPLv.3 or even GPLv.3 we would be OK.

GPLv.3 would be able to share with AGPLv.3 but would not need to get shared with other services at any time more or less. So it would cut out those who provide services to others.

IMHO the best solution would be AGPLv.3 to make sure that it does not appear in any proprietary project and that people would contribute to each other too.

This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this email by mistake), please notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this email is strictly prohibited. Email transmission security and error-free status cannot be guaranteed as information could be intercepted, corrupted, destroyed, delayed, incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may arise as a result of email transmission

I like AGPL, but I am not closed to try LGPL because of the tired discussion, the "excesive" freedom of AGPL stop some good investments also (beleive it or not it happens) and then the point is that there are some markets/ topics and points where you must try something mixed (we do it everyday BTW).

At the end I really want to see how much code is produced by the ones which own the FSF I always think they talk more than what they really do.

And @fabien we support you as usual, but please manage a better migration/upgrade path with more backward compatibility and/or planning, it is mandatory have at least 1 year to migrate between huge process changes not from today to tomorrow.

But I need to accept it is becoming better and better with the time, OCA is doing an extraordinary job also, we need MORE people contributing there too, it is the unique real shield against any fear (even If I am confident that nothing will happen) we must encourage the development there, fix issues, approve PR and so on, from time to time the community version and the commercial version will be really working toghether in all aspects (even the commercial one) (the market will put us there I am sure of that).

I respect the ones that love Free Software, but you can not think you will build a huge software for huge enterprises to manage their huge quantities of money just downloading some bunch of code "for free" and expending 1% of the time/money that that software really cost , right? then stop FUD and start build code "With Freedom" everysingle day.

We have 5 years from now on this, and honestly I am tired of leechers thinking on freedom for them but slavery for the ones that REALLY make software/market and at the end the REAL job, just because they "user" the software instead "build" community... Everybody is important on this environment from the user to the editor, and in the chain nobody effort should be understimated and underpaid.... just until EVERYBODY understand that, we must work with laws of ugly things like "Market" . "Competitors" and "PRICE" ....